Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Ji-Ae Shin
dblp:03/1887
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2008
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 2 first-authorGraphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 first-author
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Artificial intelligence
2 papers |
Planning, search and constraint satisfaction · 86% Knowledge representation and reasoning · 14% | |
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Automated reasoning and model checking · 100% |
Topics — the 5 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › classical planning
SAT-based planning |
0.1 | 1 | 2005 | Processes and continuous change in a SAT-based planner · Artif. Intell. 2005 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction
temporal planning |
0.0 | 1 | 2004 | Continuous Time in a SAT-Based Planner · AAAI 2004 |
Automated reasoning and model checking › planning
SAT-based planning |
0.0 | 1 | 2004 | Continuous Time in a SAT-Based Planner · AAAI 2004 |
Automated reasoning and model checking
satisfiability |
0.0 | 1 | 2004 | Continuous Time in a SAT-Based Planner · AAAI 2004 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
temporal reasoning |
0.0 | 1 | 2005 | Processes and continuous change in a SAT-based planner · Artif. Intell. 2005 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
SAT encoding · 0.1temporal logic · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | Definition and Extraction of Causal Relations for QA on Fault Diagnosis of DevicesabstractCausal relations in ontology should be defined based on the inference types necessary to solve the tasks specific to application, as well as domain. In this paper, we present a model to define and to extract causal relations for application ontology, which is targeted, as a case study, to serve a question-answering (QA) system on fault-diagnosis of electronic devices. In the first phase, causal categories are defined by identifying the generic inference patterns of QA on fault-diagnosis. In the second, the semantic relations between concepts in the corpus denoting the causal categories are defined as causal relations. In the third, instances of causal relations are extracted using the lexical patterns from the definitional statements of terms in domain, and extended with information from thesaurus. On the evaluation by domain experts, our model shows precision of 92.3% in classifying relations at the definition phase and precision of 80.7% in identifying causal relations at the extraction phase. Sheen-Mok Lee, Ji-Ae Shin |
ICTAI (2) | 2 |
| 2005 | Processes and continuous change in a SAT-based planner
Ji-Ae Shin, Ernest Davis |
Artif. Intell. | 1 |
| 2004 | Continuous Time in a SAT-Based Planner
Ji-Ae Shin, Ernest Davis |
AAAI | 1 |